Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 59
59 CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and Recommendations This study had two main objectives: · Red signal or beacon device; or · Conventional traffic control signal. · Recommend selected engineering treatments to improve safety for pedestrians crossing high-volume, high-speed The guidelines include supporting information for these roadways at unsignalized intersections, in particular those treatment categories as well as examples and pictures of traf- served by public transportation; and fic control devices in each treatment category. · Recommend modifications to the MUTCD pedestrian Several traffic engineers tested the guidelines and provided traffic signal warrant. feedback that has been incorporated into the current version. Additionally, the research team tested the guidelines using The first two sections of this chapter provide conclusions actual field data from the field study sites as well as other and recommendations for these two main objectives. In marked crosswalks without treatments. The results of these accomplishing the two main study objectives, the research tests indicated that the guidelines provide appropriate rec- team also developed useful supporting information on vari- ommendations of pedestrian treatments that substantially ous aspects of pedestrian safety at unsignalized roadway agree with engineering judgment. crossings. This supporting information includes pedestrian characteristics (e.g., walking speed, gap acceptance, and treat- Recommendation ment activation behavior), motorist yielding, and traffic engi- neering and transit agency perspectives. Conclusions and The research team recommends that the Guidelines for Pedes- recommendations based on the supporting information are trian Crossing Treatments (included in this report as Appendix presented in later sections of this chapter. A) be widely distributed. The audience and potential users for these guidelines include state, county, and city traffic engineers, transit agencies, roadway designers, and urban planners, as well Guidelines for Pedestrian as consultants for these groups and agencies. Crossing Treatments Summary Revisions to the MUTCD Traffic The research team developed guidelines for selecting pedes- Signal Warrant trian crossing treatments for unsignalized intersections and Summary midblock locations (Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treat- ments, included in this report as Appendix A). Quantitative pro- The research team developed and presented recommenda- cedures in the guidelines use key input variables (such as, tions to revise the MUTCD pedestrian warrant for traffic con- pedestrian volume, street crossing width, and traffic volume) to trol signals. The proposed revisions were derived from other recommend one of four possible crossing treatment categories: vehicle-based traffic signal warrants and supplemented with data gathered during the study. The basis for the proposed · Marked crosswalk; pedestrian warrant revisions is that the number of pedestri- · Enhanced, high-visibility, or "active when present" traffic ans waiting to cross a street should be no greater than the control device; number of vehicles waiting to cross or enter a street. Once this